Danny Sing is Innocent

Discussion in 'More Case Discussion Forums' started by FreeDannySing, May 21, 2021.

  1. FreeDannySing

    FreeDannySing New Member

    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Danny Sing has been wrongfully convicted of murder; he has already spent more than a decade in prison, serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole. It's time for the Omaha Police Department to reopen the investigation and right this wrong. I created a Facebook page (Release Danny Sing) in hopes of getting national attention for Danny's case. Somebody knows something; somebody knows a lawyer, private investigator, journalist, law student, criminal justice student or enthusiast; somebody knows someone who can and will help us. If you know of an attorney, private investigator, reporter, law student/professor, journalism student/professor, celebrity, blogger, podcaster, ANYONE who might be able to help Danny, PLEASE comment, post, tag, hashtag, message them, message me. I have been writing letters for years, to anyone and everyone I can think of. I have copies of police reports that I have read a dozen times, but I don’t have everything. I’m trying to get the audio/video recordings of the interviews and 911 call, but I’ve been denied twice. I have copies of the trial transcripts. We NEED to find someone willing to listen. #injustice. #wrongfulconviction #innocenceproject #freetheinnocent #exonerate #investigatinginnocence #judgesforjustice #omahaworldherald
     
    Marg from Oz likes this.


  2. Gibbo214

    Gibbo214 Former Member

    Messages:
    1,745
    Likes Received:
    15,160
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why do you think that he was wrongly convicted?
     
    Laughing, Marg from Oz and Catmommy like this.
  3. Strangeworld

    Strangeworld Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,245
    Likes Received:
    2,045
    Trophy Points:
    113
  4. FreeDannySing

    FreeDannySing New Member

    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    3
    I have copies of police reports and the trial transcripts. The story is so convoluted, too many things don’t add up; I believe the timeline is off, police didn’t follow up on other possibilities, there is no forensic evidence, witness stories don’t match each other and changed every time they told them. Police ignored any possible evidence that pointed to someone other than Danny. Witnesses said it was Danny and that’s all that was ever considered.
     
    Marg from Oz likes this.
  5. FreeDannySing

    FreeDannySing New Member

    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Marg from Oz likes this.
  6. Strangeworld

    Strangeworld Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,245
    Likes Received:
    2,045
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm confused, are you saying that he wasn't the one who discharged the gun? Is the information here incorrect:

    Sing gave several explanations for the events of the night of September 30, 2005:  (1) He got his guns from his house and went next door because he wanted to scare the Nguyens and Torres;  (2) the shooting was an accident;  (3) he stumbled, and the shotgun went off;  and (4) he blacked out and had no memory of that segment of time.
    FindLaw's Supreme Court of Nebraska case and opinions.
     
    Laughing, Marg from Oz and Catmommy like this.
  7. Catmommy

    Catmommy I see more than I say

    Messages:
    1,837
    Likes Received:
    9,369
    Trophy Points:
    113
  8. FreeDannySing

    FreeDannySing New Member

    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Yes, I’m saying he’s not the one who shot Edi Torres. There is so much more to the story, and what the witnesses said, than what is covered in that link. I have a synopsis typed up that I will post.
     
    Marg from Oz likes this.
  9. Strangeworld

    Strangeworld Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,245
    Likes Received:
    2,045
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Is there a reason or explanation for why the versions of events that are attributed to what Danny said about what happened are untrue?
     
  10. FreeDannySing

    FreeDannySing New Member

    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    3
    In 2007 Danny Sing was convicted of first-degree murder in the 2005 shooting of Edi Torres. He was convicted largely on the perjured statements of two supposed witnesses. The witnesses lied, the police botched the investigation, the public defender did the least amount of work required of him. At trial, there is no mention of the results of the GSR tests, and no fingerprints found on anything, other than one of Edi's prints on a beer bottle. The police reports are full of typos and other mistakes, and full of inconsistencies. Defence counsel was ineffectual. Danny did not get a fair trial. The police never followed up on other leads, including another neighbor saying he saw someone running in the area that night. There is evidence of possible gang affiliation with Edi, but that was never looked into. They focused only on Danny and never tried to find the truth.

    Nobody ever tried to find the truth; but the truth is in Danny's very first interview at the police station, before he was even told what he was under arrest for.

    Danny Sing is currently serving a life sentence without parole at the Department of Corrections in Lincoln, Nebraska. Danny is not perfect, he did shoot a gun that night, he admits that; but he fired the shot into the door frame of the front porch door. He didn't even know anyone had been shot until the police told him he did it; he thought he was in trouble for firing a gun within city limits. He never once says anything about shooting two guns. That's because he did not fire the shot that killed Edi Torres; someone else did that and Danny was the perfect scapegoat-he was there that night, he was drunk, and he had a gun he wasn't supposed to have.

    The shooting happened at the house next door to Danny's. Edi was a friend of the neighbors; Danny had no connection to him and didn't even really know the neighbors; he had no motive to kill anyone.

    The story, according to the supposed witnesses, is this: That night, Edi and the neighbors were hanging out on the porch when Danny came home (somewhere after midnight), after drinking all day and evening. He saw them out there and went over to talk to them about a stolen car that had been parked in the driveway between the two houses a few days prior. He was drunk, kept repeating himself, asking the same questions over and over, which was annoying the neighbors. After approximately 15-20 minutes it was mutually decided Danny should leave. Danny left, and came back a few minutes later. The witnesses say he was carrying two guns, a small one and a shotgun. They say he tried to open the porch door, but it was locked. They say he was waving the small gun back and forth at the two males, then pointed it down and shot into the porch frame door. Then they say as they were going into the house, he fired the shotgun, hitting Edi in the forehead. The witnesses called 911 at 1:29 am and when the police arrived the witnesses told them Danny was the one that did it. The police found Danny in his living room, he wasn’t even trying to hide. They took Danny into custody and more than 6 hours later began their interview of him. He thought he was in trouble for firing a gun within city limits, he had no idea anyone had been shot. The police told him he shot Edi; and either the police or his attorneys (or both) convinced Danny he fired that shot and that it must have been an accident, so that was his defence at trial.

    · Here are the problems with this story, beginning with the fact that each witness tells a slightly different version; not only from each other, but their own stories vary from their first interviews to their Depositions, to their statements at trial.

    · The witnesses don't agree on what time they got home, first they say they got off work at 8pm, later they say it was 9pm. Loc says Edi called him at 11:30pm, then says Edi was at their house when they got there at 11:30pm. According to Johanna, they were at Loc's mom's house until 12:15am. I have found no evidence that the police tried to verify any of this.

    · Edi called Loc to ask about working out together; Loc supposedly sprained his hand or wrist but didn't mention that on the phone to Edi. Edi was at the house when Loc and Johanna got home; they say they keep the porch door locked, so how did Edi get in?

    · Danny first came over after leaving the bar; the bartender says they closed at 1am, like all bars do, and that Danny left at least 30 minutes to an hour before closing. I have found no evidence that the police went back to the bar to look at video surveillance footage, which could verify what time Danny left.

    · The witnesses say he was there for 10-15 minutes the first time, and then came back within 5 minutes after leaving. According to the timeline, this would make it 1am at the very latest. The 911 call didn't come in until 1:29am.

    · Danny says while he was over there the first time, they threatened him and his family and he went back over there to scare them; they say there were no threats, that the conversation was always calm and civil; if there were no threats, what would have been his motivation for going back over there in the first place?

    · They say when Danny came back, he was carrying a gun in each hand, but they don't agree on which hand had which gun. They say he tried to open the porch door; how did he do that with a gun in each hand? They say he was waving the handgun around, pointing it back and forth from Loc to Edi; Loc says Danny actually shot at his head, but that he dodged the bullet. Johanna doesn't say anything about this and the evidence shows this to be a lie.

    · Johanna says she saw Danny point the handgun down and shoot into the door frame. Loc and Johanna say they were going into the house when Danny shot Edi; however, there is no damage to the interior entryway, but there is damage to the front door, indicating it must have been closed.

    · Johanna says there is one step up to the porch door and Danny was on that step. How did he shoot a shotgun if he was that close to the door? Loc says there are 2 or 3 steps up to the porch, Danny was on a lower step at first but then came up closer to shoot the shotgun; again, how would he shoot it from so close up? And it's not logical; if you're close to a door and you have a shotgun, the natural instinct would be to back up from the door so you have room to raise the gun and shoot it, you wouldn't move closer to the door.

    · It's not logical that Danny would then stash the shotgun outside in the back by the garage, empty the shell casing and leave it on the ground in the same area, and reload the gun; then bring the smaller gun into the house. If he shot somebody, he would want to hide both guns.

    · I have heard that shotguns can't be matched by ballistics like other guns can, but the jury never heard that; that means it's possible Danny's shotgun wasn't even the one that shot Edi, but the jury never heard that.

    · Danny’s attorneys only called two witnesses for the defence: the bartender, Charles Farris, and Omaha Police detective Michael Kozelichki.

    · The police had their story from the supposed witnesses and as such only accepted evidence to support that story and completely ignored (and possibly even hid or destroyed) evidence to contradict that story.

    I have copies of police reports and photos, but I don't have everything; I don't have the recordings of the interviews, or copies of the depositions, or even copies of all the photos. I get the runaround every time I ask for the entire file, or even a copy of the 911 call. I do have the trial transcripts and am happy to send them to anyone willing to read them.

    I am not an attorney, I am not a private investigator; but I am fighting for his life, I am looking for the truth, and I am desperately looking for someone to help him.


    If you would like to write to him directly:

    Nebraska Department of Corrections

    PO Box 22800

    Lincoln, NE 68542

    Danny Sing, Inmate #65599
     
    Marg from Oz likes this.
  11. FreeDannySing

    FreeDannySing New Member

    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Yes. He didn’t know anyone had been shot until the police told him he did it. His attorneys convinced him to say it was an accident. The truth is in his very first statement to the police.
     
  12. Catmommy

    Catmommy I see more than I say

    Messages:
    1,837
    Likes Received:
    9,369
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Since his conviction has already been upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court of Nebraska I'm afraid that your efforts will remain in vain. I wish you acceptance and peace.
     
    Laughing, Gibbo214 and Strangeworld like this.
  13. Strangeworld

    Strangeworld Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,245
    Likes Received:
    2,045
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I just can't understand if the question of his innocence is because he did shoot the victim but it was not murder, or he didn't shoot the victim, it was someone else. Just inconsistencies here and it can't be both scenarios.

    Sing asserts that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction for first degree murder.   He argues that the State failed to prove that he killed Torres purposely and with deliberate and premeditated malice.   Neb.Rev.Stat. § 28-303(1) (Cum.Supp.2006) provides that the killing must be committed “purposely and with deliberate and premeditated malice.”   Sing claims that the evidence never established such intent and that the record supports a finding that the death was the result of an accident.   He alleges that he had consumed an excessive amount of alcohol, he was verbally threatened by Loc and Torres, and the shotgun discharged when he stumbled in his drunken state.
    FindLaw's Supreme Court of Nebraska case and opinions.
     
    Catmommy likes this.
  14. FreeDannySing

    FreeDannySing New Member

    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    3
    He did not shoot the victim, someone else did.
     
  15. Strangeworld

    Strangeworld Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,245
    Likes Received:
    2,045
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Really appreciate you responding to the questions. Can you explain the information I quoted above? Was this not what Danny submitted as part of his appeal?
     
    Laughing and Catmommy like this.
  16. FreeDannySing

    FreeDannySing New Member

    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    3
    There have been plenty of instances where convictions were upheld on appeal, but eventually they were freed and exonerated. Thank you for your thoughts, I am never giving up.
     
  17. Marg from Oz

    Marg from Oz Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    48,782
    Likes Received:
    6,858
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I wish you luck. Maybe someone will pick it up. What hope have you got for getting what you need from the police records? There seems a lot of mismanagement from what you describe.
     
    Laughing and Strangeworld like this.
  18. FreeDannySing

    FreeDannySing New Member

    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Yes, that was his first appeal. I only first learned of his imprisonment in 2011 and learned from his family in 2013 that they believe he’s innocent. After reading the police reports a dozen times and reading the trial transcripts I have been convinced of his innocence for several years now.
     
  19. FreeDannySing

    FreeDannySing New Member

    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    3
    I don’t have much hope of getting everything from the police. I don’t even live in Nebraska and I’m not an attorney.
     
  20. Strangeworld

    Strangeworld Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,245
    Likes Received:
    2,045
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Was he advised to use this reasoning in his first appeal? It just seems strange that he would say he did fire the gun in his first appeal, but you are saying that he didn't fire the gun as a reason for his innocence. I can't imagine this inconsistency would help in pursuing any further investigation into the court's decision.
     
    Gibbo214, Laughing and Catmommy like this.

Share This Page



  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice